| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 68829 | 2006-05-12 04:18:00 | RAID 0 Yes or No?? | The_End_Of_Reality (334) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 454322 | 2006-05-15 03:13:00 | Editing or Encoding? Why would encoding be faster since single drives can supply data at a faster rate than your CPU can encode? Editing - my bad |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 454323 | 2006-05-15 03:14:00 | I have been reading about RAID from the mobo RAID manual and now understand most of it and also JBOD. I am not interested in RAID 0+1 as I am not worried if the RAID fails, I keep all important data off the Windows drive, (will be stored on an IDE 160GB). I realise that but the cost of 1 74Gb Raptor is ~$300 and 2 7200.9 SATA II 80Gb Seagates in RAID 0 ~$200 What would have better speed out of these? Oh yes, I know it won't have ANY effect of FPS, it is faster load times and video editing (loading) I am after. Thanks, looks like RAID is a go ahead :D |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454324 | 2006-05-16 00:41:00 | I realise that but the cost of 1 74Gb Raptor is ~$300 and 2 7200.9 SATA II 80Gb Seagates in RAID 0 ~$200 What would have better speed out of these? You'd have to find someone who's benchmarked it. Raptor has a larger single cache and higher disk speed vs. two independent heads and striping. |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 454325 | 2006-05-16 01:16:00 | True. here (forums.whirlpool.net.au) also here (www.gpforums.co.nz) and even here (www17.tomshardware.com)... is some pages about that. The things I like about RAID is I still get the 160Gb of space and it is cheaper. |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454326 | 2006-05-16 02:12:00 | Good links, The_End_Of_Reality. Money issues aside, it looks like a single Raptor drive is faster than Seagate Barracuda's running in RAID 0, in one article at least. www.pcstats.com |
kingdragonfly (309) | ||
| 454327 | 2006-05-16 02:34:00 | Thanks :) Yes, looks like it, I MIGHT be able to save up longer for a Raptor (also want new RAM), 74GB will be enough for Windows and I get the little extra reliability :) Only thing is the new 7200.9s are supposed to be a fair amount faster than previouse models... |
The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454328 | 2006-05-16 02:54:00 | so, it basicaly comes down to ~$220 for 2x 80Gb Seagate 7200.9 or ~$350 for 74Gb Raptor hmm... | The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454329 | 2006-05-16 22:17:00 | Or even ~$575 for the Raptor X 150GB, what do you think will be the best value? | The_End_Of_Reality (334) | ||
| 454330 | 2006-05-17 03:35:00 | TEOR - If you are going to bother with RAID, I would transfer any of your custom setting off the O/S C:\, using file and transfer wizard and install the O/S on the RAID drives. Store important data on a single drive. You can partition the RAID array any way you like to store your game programs apart from the O/S to allow image restore should you have nasties and new new install. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 454331 | 2006-05-17 11:10:00 | I have 2 Seagate 120GB SATA drives running in RAID 0, I use it for everything. I have heard that if you partition a RAID 0 array the performance will be worse, I don't agree with that though. I have 2 partitions, one for windows and another for , well, stuff. I can say this, its stable, I have had these 2 drives for nearly 2 years, no problems, the only time I have corrupted them completely was from overclocking too far. For games you will not see this difference, in fact it is slightly slower (due to the increased seek times), however some of the newer games do load much faster (such as BF2, I often find I am the first in the server after a map change) You should see a significant difference for video editing though, and any other task involving large files. Make sure you get the drives with the larger cache, there is no point getting 2 80GB Seagate drives with 2MB buffer because in most cases a single drive with 8MB buffer will beat a RAID 0 config with only 2 2MB buffers. |
Deimos (5715) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||